Joe Nathan Column –Gov. Mark Dayton and Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius have been listening to many parents, educators and advocacy groups. While I hope legislators will make a few changes in their proposals, the governor’s proposed Education Budget reflects many suggestions from local and statewide education leaders, described in last week’s column.

Joe Nathan

Proposed increases of more than $600 million for education, early childhood through college rely on another key decision that legislators will make. First, legislators must agree on how much to revise, and increase some state taxes.

Key increases in education funding are:

• $125 Million more for Special Education.
• $118 million increase on the formula. This provides $52 in new money for every student in the state.
• $44 Million for Early Childhood Education scholarships. This will allow an estimated“10,000 more children attend high quality child care and preschool.”
• $40 Million for all day kindergarten.
• $10 Million for teacher evaluation.
• $8.9 Million for English Language Learning. The governor’s budget extends funding for English Language Learners from 5 to 7 years “to help develop language skills…”
• Districts and charters receiving students would pay 10 per cent of special ed costs (previously 100 per cent of those costs were paid by the district where students live)
• $1 million to help reduce bullying
• $4.5 million for additional regional centers, mostly rural, to help educators learn from the most effective schools

The governor also believes the budget reflects more than $10 million in savings “through forecast and accounting efficiencies” and “reducing required special education paperwork.”

Minnesota constantly debates how much to give to districts in the general (unrestricted) funds, and how much to put into various categories. So, for example, this budget provides an additional $118 million, or $52 per student that districts can decide how to spend, and $40 million that can be spent only on all day kindergarten.

Proposed changes involve folding some existing categories into other funds. For example, the $12 per pupil that must be spent on students who are gifted would go into the general fund for school year 2014-15. Money currently being spent to help schools have a longer year would go into a fund to help students from low income and limited English-speaking families. I’d encourage retaining those categories, and will discuss this in future columns.

Strong organizations generally include funds to develop new, potentially more effective approaches. I hope legislators will allocate some “seed funds” to help educators, families and others create new options. Minnesota already has federal funds to help start charter schools. I hope the state will designate some funds for districts that want to create new, non-charter options. (Note: the Center for School Change receives some funds from the Minnesota Department of Education via a federal sub-grant, not in any areas discussed in this column)

Brenda Cassellius, education commissioner, believes: “Gov. Dayton’s budget lays out a vision where Minnesota students not only compete, but lead the way in the global economy. His budget would provide significant reform to the state’s education funding system, make it more flexible for districts, target resources toward proven strategies to close achievement gaps, support our youngest learners, and create better, richer opportunities and outcomes for every student in our state.”

While some changes should be considered, the governor and commissioner deserve credit for looking at research and listening to people who work with, and care about schools, and making education a priority.

Joe Nathan, formerly a Minnesota public school teacher and administrator, directs the Center for School Change. Reactions welcome, joe@centerforschoolchange.org

Thank you for your story. The Minnesota Council for the Gifted and Talented (MCGT) actually testified at the Senate E-12 Education Finance yesterday morning about this. The concern from the standpoint of gifted and talented advocates is this:

In Minnesota, our gifted and talented programs statute is not a mandate. It says that districts may identify their GT students, that they may provide services to those students, and that they may train teachers about GT. If the gifted and talented revenue is rolled into the general revenue for flexible use, I am very concerned that districts will no longer spend these funds on gifted and talented as intended. The funds will be spent where there is a mandate and on things to just keep operations going. There are many that are not fans of unfunded mandates but there would have to be a new sense of urgency from the gifted and talented community to make those “may”s into “must”s if the dedicated gifted and talented revenue goes away.

In the discussion at the E-12 Education Finance Committee, MCGT highlighed how the funding has served as an incentive for schools to develop full-time gifted programs and do other things to support the state’s gifted and talented students. When government provides funding, even absent a mandate, it encourages spending on services that it believes will benefit the whole community. That is what the state does when it provides gifted and talented revenue. These kids can have an immense positive impact for the state if their potential is realized. It is a great loss if that potential goes unrealized.